Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senator Cruz on tax reform: Abolish the IRS
1/18/2015 | johnwk

Posted on 01/18/2015 5:23:37 PM PST by JOHN W K

 

SEE: Cruz: Abolish the IRS

January 13th , 2015

”Republican Sen. Ted Cruz said Monday that Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

“We need to pass fundamental tax reform making our tax code simpler, flatter, fairer,” he said Monday at Heritage Action’s 2015 conservative policy summit. ”And I’ll tell you, the single most important tax reform, we should abolish the IRS.”


What is discouraging is, the above article goes on to say that Senator Ted Cruz ”… acknowledged it’s not really possible to abolish the IRS or adopt a flat tax while Obama is in office …”

Seems to me even if Obama were to agree to adopting a “flat tax” on “incomes” (profits, gains, salaries, interest, wages, tips, etc.) which I believe is what Senator Cruz is in favor of, the IRS would have to remain intact and the American people would continue to suffer all the miseries connected with this hideous form of taxation.

Would Congress not remain in charge of defining what is and is not “taxable income”? Wouldn’t a flat tax in incomes continue to allow taxation to be used by our federal government as a weapon against political foes, and to silence free speech? Is a flat tax on “income” not intentionally designed to place an unequal tax burden on our most productive and hardworking citizens, who are then taxed directly on their earned wages which is then used by corrupted politicians to buy the votes of the unemployed and unproductive who have been made dependent upon “free government cheese”? Would a flat tax on incomes not continue to generate class warfare and divide American Citizens into countless factious groups, each of which attack each other and seek to benefit from this unequal form of direct taxation? And how about the billions of dollars wasted each year by America’s taxpayers and businesses to conform to its regulations and record keeping, and its mandatory divulgence of personal information? Is this not in itself a cause to reject this hideous and oppressive form of taxation?

Moving on, is it really true that it’s not possible to abolish the IRS as we know it and adopt a fairer system of federal taxation while “Obama is in office” as suggested by Senator Cruz? Seems to me that Article V of our Constitution provides a pathway which would remove Obama from an effort to close down the IRS as we know it and adopt real tax reform. But this procedure, sending an amendment to the states for ratification would require the Republican controlled House and Senate to be sincere about wanting real tax reform.

I fully agree with Senator Cruz that "Republicans should take advantage of their control of Congress to abolish the Internal Revenue Service". And this could be accomplished by the Republican controlled Congress sending the following constitutional amendment to the states for ratification!



The Fair Share Balanced Budget Amendment


Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the sixteenth article of amendment, and require an annually balanced federal budget


“SECTION 1. The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

NOTE: these words would return us to our founding fathers ORIGINAL TAX PLAN as they intended it to operate! And, they would remove the existing chains of taxation which now oppresses America‘s free enterprise system and robs the bread which working people have earned when selling their labor!

"SECTION 2. Congress ought not raise money by borrowing, but when the money arising from imposts duties and excise taxes are insufficient to meet the public exigencies, and Congress has raised money by borrowing during the course of a fiscal year, Congress shall then lay a direct tax at the beginning of the next fiscal year for an amount sufficient to extinguish the preceding fiscal year's deficit, and apply the revenue so raised to extinguishing said deficit."

NOTE: Congress is to raise its primary revenue from imposts and duties, [taxes at our water’s edge], and may also lay miscellaneous internal excise taxes on specifically chosen articles of consumption. But if Congress borrows and spends more than is brought in from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes during the course of a fiscal year, then, and only then, is the apportioned tax to be laid.

"SECTION 3. When Congress is required to lay a direct tax in accordance with Section 1 of this Article, the Secretary of the United States Treasury shall, in a timely manner, calculate each State's apportioned share of the total sum being raised by dividing its total population size by the total population of the united states and multiplying that figure by the total being raised by Congress, and then provide the various State Congressional Delegations with a Bill notifying their State’s Executive and Legislature of its share of the total tax being collected and a final date by which said tax shall be paid into the United States Treasury."

NOTE: our founder’s fair share formula to extinguish a deficit would be:

States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S FAIR SHARE

Total U.S. Population

This formula, as intended by our founding fathers, is to insure that those states who contribute the lion’s share of the tax are guaranteed a representation in Congress proportionately equal to their contribution, i.e., representation with a proportional financial obligation!


"SECTION 4. Each State shall be free to assume and pay its quota of the direct tax into the United States Treasury by a final date set by Congress, but if any State shall refuse or neglect to pay its quota, then Congress shall send forth its officers to assess and levy such State's proportion against the real property within the State with interest thereon at the rate of ((?)) per cent per annum, and against the individual owners of the taxable property. Provision shall be made for a 15% discount for those States paying their share by ((?))of the fiscal year in which the tax is laid, and a 10% discount for States paying by the final date set by Congress, such discount being to defray the States' cost of collection."

NOTE: This section respects the Tenth Amendment and allows each state to raise its share in its own chosen way in a time period set by Congress, but also allows the federal government to enter a state and collect the tax if a state is delinquent in meeting its obligation.

"SECTION 5. This Amendment to the Constitution, when ratified by the required number of States, shall take effect no later than (?) years after the required number of States have ratified it.


_______


The only question remaining is, is our Republican controlled Congress sincere about real tax reform and removing Obama from the equation?


JWK



“…..with all these blessings, what more is necessary to make us a happy and a prosperous people? Still one thing more, fellow-citizens—a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities“. Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: abolishirs; cruz; irs; obamataxes; reform; senator; tax; taxreform
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last
To: JOHN W K

and the Department of Education


21 posted on 01/18/2015 6:51:44 PM PST by RaginRak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

the obamites have weaponized it. we’ll never get it clean again. may as well blow it up and start from scratch.


22 posted on 01/18/2015 6:52:37 PM PST by JohnBrowdie (http://forum.stink-eye.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; All
"There is no reason the same couldn't be done on the federal level with the treasury department accountable to the tax commissioner."

Good point!

Along those lines, please consider the following. Note that the Founding States had given control of the federal Senate uniquely to state lawmakers partly so that state lawmakers could work with the Senate to kill House appropriations bills which Congress cannot justify under its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers.

In other words, the Senate was intended to kill House bills which not only wrongly steal 10th Amendment-protected state powers, but also steal state revenues associated with those powers.

In fact, Justice John Marshall had clarified Congress’s limited power to lay taxes as follows.

“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

But I feel that the ill-conceived 17th Amendment, by giving low-information voters the power to elect federal Senators, threw down this major firewall that was intended to prevent the House from stealing state powers and associated state revenues.

I have also thought that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) can be required to remind “forgetful” Congress when Congress makes appropriations bills that it cannot justify under its Section 8-limited powers.

Again, your suggestion about a federal tax commissioner is well taken.

23 posted on 01/18/2015 7:06:26 PM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Bttt


24 posted on 01/18/2015 7:09:19 PM PST by Cottonbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

That makes sense. Didn’t have this before 16th Amendment.


25 posted on 01/18/2015 8:37:53 PM PST by Busko (The only thing that is certain is that nothing is certain.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

IRS with their own police force may turn on the congressman and senators who espouse such an idea...


26 posted on 01/18/2015 9:26:58 PM PST by BigEdLB (Now there ARE 1,000,000 regrets - but it may be too late.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

Sounds good to me....


27 posted on 01/19/2015 3:32:59 AM PST by ExCTCitizen (I'm ExCTCitizen and I approve this reply. If it does offend Libs, I'm NOT sorry...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Enforcement of that law must by its very nature be a federal responsibility. It has to be to stop tax evaders.


It was only established to finance the civil war to begin with and lasted ten years and was repealed, brought in again in 1894 and again repealed since then it has been to support war and socialism.


28 posted on 01/19/2015 3:50:37 AM PST by ravenwolf (s letters scripture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ravenwolf

It is a problem that goes back to the founding of the US.

There has never been an adequate way of funding the USG, even a very limited federal government. Constitutionally, the federals are forbidden from directly taxing the states; yet they cannot leave individual taxes up to the states to carry out, because individuals cross state borders all the time to evade federal taxation, even now. States have to go to lengths to catch people who have left the state to evade state taxes.

Yet about any direction you go with this, it works to the advantage of authoritarian-totalitarian types.

A totally federal taxation structure means “federalizing” all citizens, which has been in play since Social Security; as well as national ID cards; the weird restrictions of monitoring all financial transactions; it just gets icky, which it is.

Taking money at a higher level, such as VAT, would always be promised “instead” of income and other taxes, but the truth is that they would institute the VAT and *keep* the other taxes as well. The same with a national sales tax.

The bottom line is that taxation is a minefield, and millions of money people are employed specifically for the current system, so have a strong inertia to change.


29 posted on 01/19/2015 5:51:45 AM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy ("Don't compare me to the almighty, compare me to the alternative." -Obama, 09-24-11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
There has never been an adequate way of funding the USG, even a very limited federal government. It is a problem that goes back to the founding of the US.

Yes there is a way. The VERY first law signed by President Washington was the Tariff act of 1789.

Whereas it is necessary for the support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"[1]

Free Traitors love income taxes and hate tariffs. I screw 'em. If they want to off shore production then they need to pay to play.

30 posted on 01/19/2015 5:57:54 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Yes it has gotten way out of hand and when people try to bring the federal government back to where it began people will holler anarchy.


31 posted on 01/19/2015 6:08:43 AM PST by ravenwolf (s letters scripture.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: central_va

Exactly! Taxes at our water’s edge get foreigners to pay for the privilege to do business on American soil, just like a fee is required to sell one’s products at a flea market!

JWK


32 posted on 01/19/2015 6:08:57 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Yes there is a way. The VERY first law signed by President Washington was the Tariff act of 1789.

The total value of U.S. imports in 2013 was $2.25 trillion. That same year U.S. non-discretionary spending alone was $2.54 trillion. So the U.S. could have placed a 100% tariff on everything imported and it still would have run a deficit of over a trillion dollars.

33 posted on 01/19/2015 6:12:52 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg

Cut the Federal to the bone and add a 5% NRST. Repeal the 16th. Problem solved. Income taxes are evil.


34 posted on 01/19/2015 6:16:29 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: JOHN W K

The only real solution to the evils of the IRS is to abolish it, and go with a national sales tax, with a maximum rate of 10%. God doesn’t ask for more than 10%, so the government should be able to live with that. THe author of this article is correct that even a ‘flat’ tax would leave the IRS with it’s abuses in place.


35 posted on 01/19/2015 6:44:13 AM PST by zeugma (The act of observing disturbs the observed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Cut the Federal to the bone and add a 5% NRST. Repeal the 16th. Problem solved. Income taxes are evil.

I'm not thrilled with the amount of income tax I pay either. But the idea that we can fund the government through tariffs is not realistic.

36 posted on 01/19/2015 6:44:37 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
God doesn’t ask for more than 10%, so the government should be able to live with that.

God doesn't have $2.8 trillion a year in non-discretionary spending.

37 posted on 01/19/2015 6:46:09 AM PST by DoodleDawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy
Senator Cruz needs to add an additional paragraph of what will replace the IRS. No matter what simplification of the tax code that is made, there still must be a mechanism to fund the federal government.

All the mechanisms are in place to collect sales taxes. Whatever small remnant of the IRS would be necessary to maintain this would be what would remain.

38 posted on 01/19/2015 6:46:50 AM PST by zeugma (The act of observing disturbs the observed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: DoodleDawg
And that is what the direct apportioned tax is for . . . extinguishing a deficit by having each state's congressional delegation bring home a bill for their state to pay and apportioned share to extinguish the deficit!

JWK

39 posted on 01/19/2015 6:47:07 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zeugma
Why not go with the FAIR SHARE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT which would return us to our Constitution's original plan as our founders intended it to operate?

JWK

40 posted on 01/19/2015 6:49:26 AM PST by JOHN W K
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-51 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson